Kolkata Court March 1999 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Lakshi Pramanick and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1999
Reported in: I(1999)ACC673,2000ACJ414,(1999)1CALLT359(HC)
1. By consent of parties the appeal, application for stay and the application for Interim relief filed by the respondents--claimants all are taken up today for final disposal treating them as on day's list.2. The short point Involved In this appeal filed by the insurance Company is about the liability of the appellant to satisfy the interim Award of Rs. 25,000/- passed under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.3. The husband of the respondent No. 1 Lakshl Pramanlck died In a motor accident which took place on February 1, 1993. The death occurred at 8.30 a.m. on that day. The offending vehicle admittedly was not covered by any insurance policy as at the time of the accident. The insurance policy was taken out by the owner of the offending vehicle on the date of the accident. The policy clearly mentions that the period of insurance would commence from 10, a.m. on February 1, 1993 and would expire on the midnight of January 31, 1994. The learned tribunal, however, rejected the con...
Peace Heaven Vs. Must. Mozzammel Khatoon and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1999
Reported in: (1999)1CALLT523(HC)
V.K. Gupta, J.1. At the outset, learned Advocate for the respondents has raised a preliminary point regarding the maintainability of this appeal on the ground that since the lessees had not filed any appeal against the decree impugned, the appeal filed by the present appellant who was a sub-tenant,is not maintainable, decree having become final in the aforesaid situation.2. Since we propose to dismiss the appeal on merits, we do not consider it worthwhile to go into the aforesaid preliminary point 3. The point for consideration in this appeal is indeed very short. It is about the interpretation to be put upon the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 3 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1956 with regard to the scope of the applicability of this proviso to leases for period exceeding 20 years and whether the protection of the Act is available to tenants in occupation of the premises under a lease for more than 20 years, in the light of the language employed in the proviso.4. Respon...
Glucoseries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deb Kanta Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-01-1999
Reported in: (1999)2CALLT41(HC),1999(1)CHN412
R. Pal, J.1. The question in this appeal primarily is whether the defence of a company in litigation should be conducted by its elected Board of Directors or by a Special Officer. The issue arises in the context of a suit filed by the respondent against Glucoseries Pvt. Ltd. (referred to as thecompany). The respondent is a share holder of the company and was its Managing Director in 1980.2. In November, 1980 disputes arose between the share holders of the company. An application was filed under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 by the majority share holders praying inter alia for supersession of the Board of Directors on the ground of oppression and mismanagement (C.P. No. 448 of 1980). On 12th November, 1980 Mr. Sunil Mukherjee, an Advocate of this court was appointed as Special Officer over the company. C.P. No. 448 of 1980 was disposed of on 6/7th June, 1984. The Board of Directors of the Company was superceded. The order dated 6/7th June, 1984 further provided:'The Sp...
Serish Maji Vs. Nishit Kumar Dolui
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-01-1999
Reported in: (2000)2CALLT125(HC)
R. Pal, J.1. The application before us applied to enforce his right of preemption as a continuous owner under section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. His prayer was rejected by the Munsiff by an order dated 26th January, 1996 on the ground that the claim was barred by limitation and that section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 did not apply. The applicant challenged this decision by way of a revisional application. The learnedsingle Judge found that there was a conflict of views on the question whether the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 apply to proceedings under section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (referred to as the WBLRA). The matter was referred to a Larger Bench. This Bench has been constituted to resolve the apparent conflict of judicial opinion.2. The two contrary decisions are Chandra Sekhar Sarkar v. Baidyanath Chosh : : AIR1982Cal6 where Guha-J took the view that section 5 applied to applications under section 8 of the WBLRA and...
J.K. Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. and Designated Authority, Kvss, 1998
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-01-1999
Reported in: 1999(65)ECC386,1999(111)ELT698(Cal)
ORDERAjoy Nath Ray, J.1. The writ petitioner imported certain machinery from Germany with commitments for submitting installation certificates and for keeping to certain export commitments for five subsequent years.2. The import was made in or about 1995.3. The machinery did not work as expected and at least with regard to initial years there were export defaults! On or about 31-3-1998, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Appraising Grade 5A issued a demand from Customs House, Calcutta calling upon Mr. Gupta's client to pay the full duty saved amount of Rs, 3,22,01,357.00. 4. Thereafter the Finance No. 2 Act, 1998 came into operation, and the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme was resorted to by the writ petitioner. They filed the necessary declaration under Section 88 of the said Act.5. Bank guarantees covering 50% of the said duty were also in operation.6. An earlier writ was moved before me regarding restraining of the enforcement of these bank guarantees, but I dismissed the writ as 50% ...
Smt. Alo Rani Saha Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-01-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ3112
Gitesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee, J. 1. This application has been described in the cause title as an application under Article 226 for a writ in a nature of habeas corpus or any other appropriate writ.2. The petitioner Smt. Alo Rani Saha is the mother of one Smt. Subhra Saha who gave birth to a child at the Nil Ratan Sarkar Medical College Hospital on 21-11-96. The petitioner's contention is that her daughter Smt. Subhra gave birth to a healthy male child and this was also initially intimated to her, but later she was informed that Subhra gave birth to a dead female child. It is the contention of the petitioner that Subhra gave birth to a healthy male child but by conspiracy and in connivance with the doctors and other staff of the hospital Subhra's male child was given to respondent No. 13 Smt. Iti Ghosh, the wife of Respondent No. 14, Kajal Ghosh and since then the said respondent Nos. 13 and 14 are detaining Subhra's male child claiming the same to be their own child. A complaint was lod...
Sunny Detergent Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-01-1999
Reported in: 2000(67)ECC368,1999(114)ELT384(Cal)
ORDERAjay Nath Ray, J.1. This writ application is directed against an order of the Designated Authority passed under the Finance (No. II) Act, 1988. The order is dated 10-2-1999 and calls for deposit as per Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme.2. Mr. Bajoria points out that the Designated Authority has proceeded on what is, according to him, an error apparent on the record.3. The dues from the assessee were on the excise account and included amounts for duty, penalty and redemption. The aggregate amount exceeded Rs. 30,00,000/-.4. An appeal was taken to the Tribunal, which passed an order for deposit pending appeal; that deposit included payment of Rs. 5,00,000/-, Rs. 2,00,000/- in regard to penalty and also Modvat adjustment to the extent of Rs. 11,00,000/- approximately; although these are payments, yet were there no Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, these would be not more than deposits for keeping the appeal before the Tribunal alive. All these deposits would have to be adjusted at the final hearing...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›